People fleeing the cities?

This article was on Planetizen. an interesting quote....

"In what's been called the "Green Acres" effect, Americans are fleeing the cities for the country in record numbers. Eighteen of the 25 largest metropolises saw more people leave than move in, according to a Census Bureau report released in 2006."

It's definitely people leaving the 'burbs because the population of NYC proper has risen, not fallen.

I've posted about this before. Particularly in NYC but it's also happening in Philly.

In NJ a wave of migrants (mostly 2nd & 3rd generation irish) left North Jersey just before and just after WWII and moved south and west into central and northwestern
NJ. Shortly thereafter large Italian and Jewish populations in Brooklyn moved en masse to Staten Island. In the late 80's and early 90's the 2nd generation of Staten Islanders from Brooklyn began to trickle over into Middlesex Co., NJ in search of cheaper housing. The people selling to them were moving west into Somerset Co. and south into Monmouth Co. In the last 10 years the Staten Island set has been bypassing Middlesex Co. altogether for Monmouth and northern Mercer Counties.
People who lived their whole lives in Mercer Co. are now either resettling in Trenton or moving south to Burlington Co. and Monmouth Co. natives are pushing into Ocean Co and even straight to Cape May or Altantic Counties.

There's a whole push going on everywhere in metro New York that's been going on for generations, really, where people are always looking in the next county further out for affordable housing. You've read the articles on Allentown and northeastern PA feeling the effects. You'll always hear people moving to these exurban places, "i just want a little place in the country"

It's been the same thing in metro Philly but to a lesser extent. Mostly because housing is still generally affordable but there's still a push south and west that's being felt in northeastern, MD now. Often the people moving there are well off but not well off enough to have their dream home in the place they want it. Moving 30 miles west doesn't bother them so . . .

but as far as that ABC article is concerned - This family lived in suburban New York but left because of a fear of terrorism in NYC?

So they moved to the south where crime is almost always worse.
The county they moved to has of a population 71,000. In 2000 they reported 5 murders, 13 rapes, 47 robberies, and 361 aggravated assaults.

Compare that with Monmouth Co, NJ, which has a population of 615,000.
In 2000 they reported 6 murders, 63 rapes, 390 robberies, and 756 aggravated assaults.

Crime is significantly worse in every category except for robberies - where it's comparable.

Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

Not really how do you explain places like the rust belt with flat property costs? People are attracted to the jobs, and jobs are leaving the great lakes.

The point of the article, though, is that the internet is making it possible to work from anywhere . . . even in job poor rural counties.

I really think the jobs follow the bosses. The cracks in the Sunbelt are beginning to show. I don't think it's going to hold on to its supremacy past another census.

Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

I think this is due to cheap land, as this quote from the article touches on....

"One of the main reasons for the move is land. Real estate experts say the hunt is on, creating a boom in the rural real estate market."

But I think they have it slightly wrong... I believe that as developers look for cheap land further out, they put up a development, build new schools, and city/near city residents flock to it. So it is the appeal of cheap land and the fact that most areas attempts to curb urban sprawl have been dismal at best, that we see this occurring.

So... follow the money...cheap land = big profits. This usually cannot occur with infill projects at the scale of a greenfield development with new schools.

What you're forgetting is that most exurban communities are now wise to the game and while the land may be relatively cheap the impact fees are not. Homes are still going to be cheaper out in the middle of nowhere but i think the savings are limited enough these days that in most metro areas people are starting to weigh the costs and benefits of being so far removed. (obviously a little different in the most expensive markets)

Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

ehh . . . all of the big names in subdivisions - Hovnanian, Pulte, Westrum - they're all shifting major assets to urban infill and you can't get in under $300k

Imay be leaning on my own area knowledge.... In most places in Florida, greenfield included, $300,000 would be affordable housing. Since impact fees in Florida are in the median range of $3,000 per house (Wakulla = $521for low, and Lee is $8976 for a high, with 36 samples) they do not even slow development down. And as far as anyone getting wise to the sprawl, pro growth counties will permit almost anything...for a price.

So... I guess I am coming from my local perspective. It may not apply on a national level.

But your comment raises an interesting question, if infill is so hot, why would there be this report? Or has the trend not been around long enough to reverse the migration? Makes you go Hmmmmm.

Imay be leaning on my own area knowledge.... In most places in Florida, greenfield included, $300,000 would be affordable housing. Since impact fees in Florida are in the median range of $3,000 per house (Wakulla = $521for low, and Lee is $8976 for a high, with 36 samples) they do not even slow development down. And as far as anyone getting wise to the sprawl, pro growth counties will permit almost anything...for a price.

So... I guess I am coming from my local perspective. It may not apply on a national level.

But your comment raises an interesting question, if infill is so hot, why would there be this report? Or has the trend not been around long enough to reverse the migration? Makes you go Hmmmmm.

Yeah, pro-growth counties will permit almost anything for a price. That's being wise to the development game.

But in Florida there's not much of a choice in housing. Outside of Miami and maybe Tampa you can't really choose between suburban or urban living. It's all suburban or faux-rural.

I have no doubt that people moving as far out as they can is a trend, but a small one. It shows up demographically because, well, if you have a rural county of 40,000 people and you get two new subdivisions totalling 400 houses then you'll probably wind up with 1200 new people and you have a statistically significant rise in population (what 3%?). If Philly adds 3,000 new units this year it doesn't even register in a city of 1.5 million (about one half of one percent. )

It's why Vegas always shows up in the "fastest growing counties" list even though NYC added the entire population of Las Vegas in the last 10 years.

Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

But in Florida there's not much of a choice in housing. Outside of Miami and maybe Tampa you can't really choose between suburban or urban living. It's all suburban or faux-rural.

Just wanted to correct you on this... you forgot Jacksonville, Orlando, and the other 2/3 of south florida (Broward and Palm Beach Counties), aslo, I would go as far as to say there are a dozen or so mid size cities that have urban cores.....

Have you been anywhere in Florida outside of Miami or Tampa? There is a lot of choice in housing... Condo, SF, MF, trailer, ranch, gated development, macmansion on water, really big mansion on beach, the list goes on forever...

IF this is true, it is absolutely horrible, and it's extremely sad that very little is being done about it. The USA isn't anything without it's cities, if this isn't reversed, we will be worth nothing.

IF this is true, it is absolutely horrible, and it's extremely sad that very little is being done about it. The USA isn't anything without it's cities, if this isn't reversed, we will be worth nothing.

Many people choose not to live in an urban compound, including me. Get use to it.

IF this is true, it is absolutely horrible, and it's extremely sad that very little is being done about it. The USA isn't anything without it's cities, if this isn't reversed, we will be worth nothing.

I'd like to think the USA is what it is because of people, not because of streets and buildings. That said, it would not surprise me if it's true. When the jobs aren't in the cities and urban living costs more than living elsewhere, you'd expect shifts.

I think you guys are confusing "urban living" with living in a city. I can still live in any of the 10 biggest cities in the country and have a detached single-family house with a two car garage.

Just because you're in the city limits doesn't mean it's urban.

Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

I have only lived in the city for about 4 years of my life. I didn't experience anything special about it, besides getting used to the noise of trains. I grew up on 80 acres in a rural area and bought my first house in a rural area. I enjoy the commute and time to myself not having to fight traffic, for me it is a time for me to unwind. Furthermore, I fully enjoy my rural property, which abuts state-owned nature preserve, its peacefulness and serenity help keep me sane. I like having a yard large enough to mow with a rider and being able to pee outside (hey, I'm a guy). The city is "only" a 20 minute drive away to enjoy all the "amenities" our city offers. The city is not for everyone and as long as there are not laws requiring residency inside a city for employees, I probably will never live in one.

Depends on one's definition. I have a 35' wide lot by 100 feet long. There are plenty of folks out there that think thats pretty urban. It is however, what I grew up with, so I am pretty comfortable with it.

Depends on one's definition. I have a 35' wide lot by 100 feet long. There are plenty of folks out there that think thats pretty urban. It is however, what I grew up with, so I am pretty comfortable with it.

No, i don't think it's really that subjective. Raleigh, NC for instance . . . I know lots of people who live "in the city" but live in a suburban subdivision built in the last 10 years.
That's not to say there are no urban parts of Raleigh but, i'd say about 80% of it isn't and while people there might say downtown or Hillsborough St. is "urban" (and i wouldn't argue with them) you certainly won't hear them say that about North Raleigh.

I also don't think it's as simple as a small lot size. I've seen subdivisions full of starter homes jammed onto 40x 80 lots and sometimes smaller. It's clearly suburban. Except in the suburbs people have a tendency to call them "condos" regardless of whether or not they actually are.

Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

Imay be leaning on my own area knowledge.... In most places in Florida, greenfield included, $300,000 would be affordable housing. Since impact fees in Florida are in the median range of $3,000 per house (Wakulla = $521for low, and Lee is $8976 for a high, with 36 samples) they do not even slow development down. And as far as anyone getting wise to the sprawl, pro growth counties will permit almost anything...for a price.

The median home price in Florida is about 230k, which still doesn't qualify as affordable for most of the population.

The median home price in Florida is about 230k, which still doesn't qualify as affordable for most of the population.

Oops, I was being flippant when I said $300,000 was affordable. But there is some truth to it. In many areas in Florida within a decent commuter shed, $300,000 would be a bargain. Granted, you can always find something cheaper, but most of the time you find that the appreciation outlook for that cheaper house is not the best investment for your money.